Talk:Iowa-class battleship/Archive 3

Tomahawk Specs

The Tomahawk range is dramatically understated at 675nm. In fact we were carrying Block II BGM-109s which had about twice that range. ---B- 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of BGM-109B TASM? The Iowas did carry them for a time along with TLAMs. --Dukefan73 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the page Armament of the Iowa class battleship, the TASM should be moentioned there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions - Welding, RADAR

The Illinois and Kentucky sections both repeat the sentences on welding and Montana changes verbatim. It seems to me this would be better placed in a section lower down on construction techniques or similar. Of course a few details on the construction of the first 4 to counter balance are needed. Something about construction techniques maturing during the war, possibly.

Also the 1980 radars are described, but not a word on their WWII radars. Even if they somehow didn't get WWII radar it would be notable enough to say so.--J Clear 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into getting WWII radar specs after finals week, and will also check to see if they had any electronic countermeasures installed in WWII for protection against missiles (though I don't expect to find that they did). TomStar81 (Talk) 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrier conversion

In the 80s, it was initially planned for a "Phase II" of the reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships, which would have involved converting them into battleship/aircraft carrier hybrids.[1] While ultimately nothing came of this plan, it's just as deserving of mention in the article as things like the rejected proposals to complete the USS Kentucky as a missile battleship. For that matter, the WWII proposal to convert them into aircraft carriers (which Admiral King rejected), also mentioned in that same link, could presumably also be put somewhere in this article. Redxiv 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the plan(s) to remove the #3 turrets and replace them with aircraft facilities (that information having come up during my New Jersey research), but I was unaware of any plans for the construction of these BB's to be switch to CV's. This info will make its way into the article forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom it would be nice to find the original references for these conversions. The FAS (globalsecurity) article is so poorly edited that using it as a citation bothers me.--J Clear 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ther's a GOA report detailing plans to remove the #3 turret on USS New Jersey and replace it with either aircraft facilities of a missile magazine sitting in my sandbox at the moment; I could add that to this article to back up the global security sie currently mentioned if it would make you feel better. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

i have a pic of a model iowa with the V flight decks that could be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The debate on armor protection

I'd like to clear up the debate over the Iowa's armor scheme, what calibre gun they were designed to withstand, immune zones, etc. Norman Friedman, one of the most recognized authorities on the subject, makes the following qoute in his work, U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History:

"Protection against shellfire duplicated that of the South Dakota, with an immune zone of 18,000 to 30,000 yards against the 16in/45 gun firing a 2,240 pound shell. It corresponded to 21,700 to 32,100 yards against the higher velocity and hence flatter-trajectory 16in/50 firing the same shell. However, the armored box of the new ships was 464-feet long, compared with the 360-feet for the South Dakotas, with a proportionate increase in weight. Just as the Iowas were being designed, BuOrd adopted the new 2,700 pound, 16-inch shell, a magnificently destructive projectile, which shrank the immune zone (against the 16in/45) to only 5,300 yards (20,200 to 25,500 yards)."

Some of the confusion over this seems to stem from the fact that people forget that the first class of US "fast battleships", the North Carolinas, were designed to protect against 14" shells, as the USN demanded greater endurance from their ships, and were willing in that case to trade some protection for it.

Another point when discussing armor. There were great variations in armor quality and layout when comparing contemporary German, Italian, French, Japanese, and American ships. The quality and layout went a long ways in determing how effective the armor was. Here's a qoute from Nathan Okun (I'll provide a multitude of links to his work at the end) when comparing the belt armor of Bismark, KGV, Vittori Veneto, Yamato, South Dakota, and Richelieu:

"The use of a spaced decapping plate and a large outboard inclination made the U.S. design, which had the thinnest belt armor, more effective than the heaviest 'naked' armor, regardless of the poor scaling effects of the U.S. WWII Class 'A' armor!"

Remember, this is essentially the same armor and layout as used for the Iowas. The "spaced decapping plate" mentioned is something most people don't know about or forget about. Iowa had a 1.5" STS plate outboard of the main belt. It was designed to "decap" incoming AP projectiles at most angles of obliquity. The Iowas decapping plate was capable of decapping the AP rounds fired from the 18.1" guns of the Yamatos, depending on the engagement parameters. Getztashida makes the assertion in his argument that the Iowas had the same armor protection as the North Carolinas, which unfortunately is false. He may be confusing the North Carolinas with the South Dakotas, upon which the Iowas scheme was based. The North Carolinas had a much smaller immune zone against the 16/45 2,240 pound shell than did the South Dakotas or the Iowas. Getztashida's claim that "the Iowas did not carry sufficient protection against 16" guns - neither the 50 cal nor the 45 cal version" is patently false. If I haven't proved it with the information I've provided here, then I don't know what kind of proof is needed.

Anynobody then states an unusual viewpoint:

"Getztashida I totally agree with you that the North Carolina class ships should accurately be called battlecruisers, after all their armor was only able to offer protection against the 14" guns they were designed with. I'm also open to discussing calling the Iowa class battlecruisers since they were designed with the 16"/45 caliber guns and armor, but ended up with a battery 16"/50 guns with armor protection for 16"/45."

First off, there's no argument to be made for the North Carolinas, South Dakotas, nor the Iowas as regards to them being "battlecruisers". They were nothing of the sort in either design nor role. Let me clear up another misperception that Anynobody and Getztashida seem to have; the North Carolinas DID have a substantial immunity zone (21,300 yards to 32,000 yards) against the 16/45 gun and 2240 pound shell.

Now, if you want to speak of inadequacies in the protection of the Iowas (and the other USN "fast battleships"), now we're talking about underwater protection. Their underwater protection was adequate at best, certainly inadequate against the IJN Long Lance torpedo (then again, did any ship of any navy have adequate protection against the Long Lance?). Fortunately for the USN only North Carolina was torpedoed during the war, and although she was able to sustain 18 knots afterwards, No. 1 turret was essentially out of action and the main search radar was disabled due to shock. Although the protection system had come close to failure in a crucial area (abeam the magazines), BuShips felt that the system had performed as designed. Take it with a grain of salt I suppose.

• http://www.combinedfleet.com/gunarmor.htm
• http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
• http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm
• Friedman, Norman U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History ISBN 0870217151

--Dukefan73 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

   I wanted to add something regarding the deck armour of the Iowa's. 

The article states it to be 190mm. I recently read and article by Nathan Okun regarding the armour protection of the various battleships, including the South Dakota class. He mentioned that there was a main armour deck roughly 150 mm think and a weather deck about 37.5mm thick. Now in other articles like regarding the Tirpitz only the main armour deck is mentioned while the weather deck thickness is not. I there fore propose a standard value be taken for all battleships either the total deck or the main armour deck to allow for fair comparison as this would appear to show the Iowa's deck protection to be stronger than it is relative to other battleships. Also mulitiple decks seperated are weaked than a single thick deck and therefore the 150mm + 37.5mm would not give 190mm protection but somewhat less protection (i dont know the exact formula but could dig it up in a few days to give an approximate value). I will also retrace the excellent artile by Nathan Okun and post a link here. I also propose a number of other additions such as mentioning the inclined angle(19o) of the armour belt which would increase the effective protection which i calculated(strictly ameture cal) to be around 14.2". My main source is the article by Nathan Okun can i site the article as a reference? srry for the rather long post Merry Christmas everyone.

--Vamsae (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate seems very theoretical. It presumes a duel between battleships that scarely occured anytime in the last 100 years. The battleships that have been sunk in that time weren't sunk by the shells of enemy battleships - they've were sunk by torpedoes and bombs, so this talk of relative ranges and broadside weights is comparable to fantasy baseball. It's a fun debate, but I don't see how it furthers the encyclopedia. Unless this thread is focused on improving the article I suggest we find another forum for it. The articles on Wikipedia should be based solely on the summaries of reliable sources, not on our conjectures and surmises. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reactivation Potential

I really don't like the inclusion of the Gorshkov qoute. It would lead one to think that the Iowas are some sort of unsinkable super-ships. I'm willing to bet anything that Gorshkov was blowing hot air when he said what he did; Soviet Naval Aviation would have had less problem taking out an Iowa than Third Fleet and Fifth Fleet had taking out Musashi and Yamato in WWII. My humble opinion, but that quote is *constantly* overblown regarding this subject. --Dukefan73 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should remain in. This is because they Soviets had a different naval structure to the US and vaulued different ideas in their ideal fleet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Actually, I'm a bit dumbfounded here, as you are the one that has repeatedly stated that you don't like the article because it makes the same claims that Gorshkov does in his quote. In other words, you're contradicting yourself quite a bit here. What was different about Soviet naval structure or values that had any bearing, either way, on the Gorshkov quote? I'd like to here your reasoning on this one. Thanks. --Dukefan73 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Critism

From reading this article it seems that Iowa class is some kind of supership, above criticism. I hope someone edits it soon to show faults in the class, such as the armour protection, similary to how its done in other pages on battleship classes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:86.140.35.108 (talk • contribs)

There should be some information about the inadequate armour protection for the Iowas in the armour section. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion

Can't speak for Neon Genesis as I never saw an episode, but the picture presented here supposedly of the Illinois and Kentucky ... maybe it's the angle we're looking at, but their bows look more like the blunt noses of the North Carolina class battleships. Iowas are much longer and sleeker. Nolefan32 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a very brief shot of some kind of Command and Control system where the ships were labeled thusly. Actually Evangelion used a lot of "inspired by-" style military equipment, like a hypothetical Yak-38 derivative, etc.

Funny thing, even really sleek ships like the Scharnhorsts look chubby when viewed from low and in front. That being said, there's actually no canonical information that Illinois and Kentucky really were Iowas in the NGE canon, so I don't know.

Anyway enough expounding on the subject, I would actually support removing the information except that there's a pretty picture too.

Eleland 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This image names both battleships as Illinois and Kentucky. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And that image reflects proper Iowa-class outlines for them both. However, this image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5f/NGE_Iowas.png) - the one on the Iowa-class page - is a straight on shot, and from this angle, those aren't Iowa-class bullnoses we're looking at. Might just be bad animation, but those are too rounded; they're definitely more North Carolina-like. Nolefan32 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats actually no the only thing thats wrong with the ships, both are missing the bow mounted satellite uplink antenna that should have been added in the 1980s. I would chalk it up to bad animation myself, it would be hard to miss the christmas tree antennas since that was a mainstay feature of the modernized Iowas. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

They're definately the modernized versions though because the Phalanx mounts can clearly be seen on either side of the superstructure. Most of the ships also carry their original registry numbers on the fleet schematic, such as DDG-173 JDS Kongo. The two battleships identified as the Illinois and Kentucky both carry their planned numbers (BB-65 and BB-66). The fleet flagship Over the Rainbow is listed in the end notes of the English 5th manga volume as possibly being the former USS Theodore Roosevelt, but in fact carries the registry number of the Harry S. Truman (CVN-75, not CVN-71 as it should be). After the Second Impact, the reformed UN absorbed most of the world’s surviving military assets to form its own military, thus explaining the presence of former JMSDF ships like the Kongo and former Russian Navy ships like the Udaloy and the Kirov. The question then is whether or not it is notable enough to be mentioned. While they aren't a major part of the overarching plot like the Evangelion units are, they played a significant role within that particular episode as they are the only conventional weapons to successfully destroy an Angel. Their presence is also referred to within the List of Angels page itself.the_one092001 (talk) 07:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

IMO, yes; but in the opinion of the powers that be: no. If you peek at the history around March 17, 2007 or so you should spot my rewrite, which originally included this information, but it was removed for being non notable. I am thinking about readding this mention, but to do so would rewuire a citation to anime's notablility (in other words, we need a cite to a reliable source that says this is the greatest anime of all time, or one that lists awards won in reference to this episode, or something of that nature); otherwise the material will end up being removed again. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it listed earlier when I visited the page previously. I actually didn't notice it was gone until I saw the talk page here about it. There will be of course no citations of NGE as the best anime of all time, and as far as I know Episode 8 never won any specific awards. It is quite clearly one of the most influential anime series of all time, but not THE most influential. It was written about in an article for a magazine (I believe the Atlantic Monthly) where its psychological impact has had an influence on many Japanese teenagers and the rising rates of mass suicides. Hideki Anno was interviewed as well about his thoughts on the situation, and he criticized the relatively immaturity of the Japanese people as also being a contributing factor. Point is that it was considered influential on Japanese society as a whole. Unfortunately, its psychological influence likely has no bearing on how notable its use of Iowa-class battleships is. the_one092001 (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

SPQ-9

SPQ-9, the bubble / radome 2/3 of the way up the mast below the AN/SLQ-32 and above the CIWS and GFCS radar.

I made a stub on AN/SPQ-9 and I noticed some of the Iowa class images of the late 1980s show it and some do not. I'm also not sure which units had the SPQ-9, but it looks like Wisconsin and Missouri both had it during the Gulf War. As for the rest of the radar section, no offense, but the AN/SPS-49 section seems a bit overkill. In the grand scheme of things, the battleship is not an air defense unit, rather a major anti-surface / strike platform, thus the 49 shouldn't be explained in this level of detail in the class article. The only combat use I can see for the the 49 is if the Iowa's had capabilities for combat air controllers that would be direct A/C to ground targets and locate the A/C via the 49. Otherwise, the battleships would be screened by some AAW unit, a AN/SPY-1 or AN/SPS-48 SM-2 missile carrying cruiser at least in the 80s period anyway. What is important in this article, at least I would think, would be radars intended to track surface targets to engage with the shipboard artillery. Radars like the gun fire control radars and the SPQ-9, if it played a role, could use more coverage. I'm not sure I can provide that detail for these ships, maybe someone else has a source that they can use to elaborate on these radars instead of the 49. --Dual Freq 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is easier to reduce details than to add details, so I put everything I had into the article rewrite to update everything. On the issue of SPQ-9: I have been trying to call togather enough information to create an article on the radar, EW, and EW countermeasures of the Iowa-class to help reduce page size here. I haven't dug into it hardcore yet because I just got out of summer school this week. At any rate I agree that the radar stuff should focus on the surface equipment. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)